Britgrog needed again...

[JonS]

Lies! Lies I tell you!

Hang on a sec ... no it isn't ... that's pretty much bang on the money. But not quite - 7th A-Tk Regt did knock out a PzIV in Italy. Yup, one tank in 18+ months. The bleedin' infantry knocked out more panzers. With grenades.

The A-Tk Regt gun park steadily declined in size throughout the campaign from 4 btys of 4 troops of 4 guns, to 3 btys of two troops (one troop with 4 x 17-pr, one tp with 4 x M10). Still, they did better that the AA gunners, who were disbanded altogether.

Regards

JonS

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

600 ... at first glance it doesn't sound like a lot, in the context of a global war. However, on a quick-and-dirty calculation I see its roughly enough to completely officer about 10 brigades, which is not so trivial.

Dandy, not surprisingly Fendick talks about the CANLOAN scheme in his book.

Mike, I thought most of the Canadians who went to the Med for combat experience ended up staying there (not just because they died), and not going back to their parent units. Or am I mainly thinking of Canadians in England who went to Canadian units in Sicily/Italy for combat experience?

Regards

JonS

I think you answered your own question. Strome Galloway of the RCR went from England to the Royal Irish Rifles and fought in Tunisia; he was with RCR again in Sicily. He's the best known example due to his writing. I'm not sure I can account for the others but I think your final supposition is likely the most accurate.

[Firefly]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Firefly:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

It changed.

The hvy mortars were handled by the A-Tk regt (go figure).

Probably because they were classified as artillery and the AT regiments in Commonweatlh divisions were provided by the RA or RHA. </font>

[Darknight (DC)]

Originally posted by JonS:

It changed.

NZ Divs 28 (MG) Bn maintained the 4 MMG coy arrangement until it was disbanded in Jan 1945. The hvy mortars were handled by the A-Tk regt (go figure).

You mentioned it twice in the above discussion Jon, but wasn't the 28th NZ Bn the Maori Bn and the 27th Bn was the MG battalion?

[JonS]

yes it was. I realised later that I'd numptied it, but decided to leave it and see if anyone noticed

28th was of course the Maoris, 27th was the MGers. As you said The rest is correct though.

Erm. Hmm. No, actually it isn't. Not quite. 27th MG Bn wasn't disbanded in Jan 45. It was re-roled, and became a standard infantry battalion.

Regards

JonS

[Andreas]

Good thread.

Regarding splitting up the MG BN, this may have happened more in defensive situations with light coverage of the front by the PBI.

The 78th Division's account from Termoli (a place now very familiar to some on this board ) indicates that the Vickers were split off along the frontline - which was about a Brigade+ worth of PBI in a not very enticing situation, holding a bridgehead against German paras and 16.PD.

[JonS]

The following are some comments from Mr Fendick on this subject, culled from some email correspondence with him.

It is strange how MG units were treated in most armies. There often seemed to be either a resentment of their existence or complete ignorance of their roll and how to use them to best advantage.

Many Rifle COs wanted them permanently organic to their own Support Companies, but that of course defeated the principle of concentration of force which the ad hoc creation of, first, Brigade and then Div MG units had started in WW I, and which lead to the formation of the MG Corps.

[snips]

My Platoon was sometimes placed under command of a rifle battalion, and then given no job to do...the CO apparently either forgot I was there, or didn't know what to do with me. Others were very clued up and always kept me close and accepted advice to be included in their orders. Once in a while I would simply go do what I thought best, after hearing his orders to his battalion, to the surprise of the CO, and often with gratitude later from those we helped!

[snips]

Putting the 4.2 mortars with the A/Tk unit [in 2(NZ)Div] seems strange. I suppose the only logic was that it was an artillery unit, sort of, and the gunners always did want to get their hands on the heavy mortars !

In fact, in the Canadian Army, after the war, when Div Support Regiments were abolished, as they also were in the British Army, the 4.2s were put into specially created Arty batteries. The Vickers platoons were made part of the Support Companies of the rifle battalions. [this was done in 2(NZ)Div in Feb 45]

That killed the long-established principle of concentration and flexibility for both weapons.

[snips]

I am not surprised that the NZ MG units retained the four MG Coys, and the 4.2" Mortars were put somewhere else. The question of responsibility for the mortars was the subject of a lot of in-fighting and inter-arms antipathy.....the Artillery always thought they should be theirs, as they fired HE, (but NOT A/Tk !!!).

After WW II, in the Canadian Army, when the MG or Support Battalions were abolished for reasons of economy and the contraction of the Army, the Vickers went back to individual rifle battalions, and the Artillery did get the mortars. They were formed into independent Batteries, and nominally allocated one battery to a Brigade.

The reverting of MG platoons to the battalions was a retrograde step, dictated solely by post-war economies, not by tactical considerations. By having all MGs under one command, a commander had max flexibility for their employment. When appropriate, they were placed under command of a rifle battalion CO, but when it was more appropriate to employ them on tasks outside the concerns of an individual CO, they could be brigaded or grouped in any way appropriate for maximum effectiveness, and in the way best suited to the demands of the battle....... Eg, on Brigade or Divisional plans and tasks. This was usually done in defence, when the Div plan provided a continuous interlocking series of DF targets, or to provide neutralising fire on known or suspected enemy positions during an attack.

Anyway, that is all water under the bridge, as the Vickers is gone, and there is no MG in the system now that can duplicate its capabilities.

Although, the Canadian Army has recognised the deficiency to a limited degree, and now has the GPMG equipped with a dial sight, so it can at least be used at night, and do limited indirect firing, although still as individual guns, or as a platoon at the most. And of course without the sustained-fire capability which was unique to the Vickers.

[snips]

Regards

JonS

[ April 26, 2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Dorosh]

The mortars went back to the infantry, and are now once again heading back to the artillery, mainly because the M109s are on the way out....